Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

According to the info I found the Leaf will lose an additional 10% of capacity(70% vs 80%) over the course of 10 years (not 3) if fast charging is used. Not great but not horrible. For an informed buyer, you are not seeming to be very informed.

There are plenty of challenges for Electric cars, no need to exaggerate them.

I suppose that depends on the investigation. If you insurance company can show that the software developer was negigent, then yes, they would pay. Otherwise it would be whomever was at fault. If both drivers were driving via computer, then it would probably be a no fault situation and each person(and their insurance) would be liable for their own car/damages.

NOTE: am pro-driverless vehicles, so my opinion may be colored by that fact.

People who support this tech fall into a couple of categories

1) They believe computers react faster and can be programmed with more TOTAL situational awareness than humans2) They realize that humans are way overconfident of their driving abilities3) They realize that people are far more distracted in their driving today than 25 years ago.

I happen to ascribe to all 3 of these beliefs. The evidence is fairly strong on all 3 fronts, although #3 is primarily anecdotal.

---------------In the end liability doesn't matter. Only the facts matter. IF (as I believe) computer controlled options are safer, then the insurance companies will work VERY hard to get people to adopt them and thus lower the total risk for their $$. If not, then insurance companies will do just the opposite. This is a really basic market based move.

I am smart enough to realize that as good a driver as I am, I am way more aggressive than average and thus prone to accidents (I have had 1 small accident in the last 15 years, but that is probably partially just odds).

If I have numbers that show that my total risk portfolio is lower using one, I will use it. Yes, the software may glitch and cause a problem. Yes, there may be things the computer cannot predict. But overall I am safer. That is all I really care about.

Stop fooling yourself with delusions of control and your life will be much better, safer, more fun, and less frenetic. Control what you can as much as you can. Let go of the rest.

Except that science CAN theorize that the universe can be created form nothing. (Google search is a wonderful thing). I dont claim to understand Hawking here, but I respect his theories enough to work on it and hope those who can either disprove or verify his postulates.

This is another issue which arises from the idea of a corporation as a person. It is NOT a person. It is a legal entity. As such they are exempt from moral/ethical obligations, their only obligation is to stockholders.

Those companies have no ethical obligation to you, and thuis I would argue you have none to them. Treating a corporaiton like a person is actually feeding into the idea that they are people. They are not, and treating them like one makes it worse.

In fact, I would argue that you have a moral obligation to treat all corporations EXACTLY how they treat you. You only obligation in regards to them is to your shareholders. (your family) Do whatever is in their best interest at all times.

The problem with your action model is that it is a net negative for you, and a net positive for them. You give them $$ for free in the form of time and energy spent calling, arraging the return, and probably time getting to the place for the drop off. I value my time far to much to do this for the vast majority of companies. Especially large companies. MAYBE if it is a local or small business I have a relationship with I will.

If a company who makes such a mistake is willing to either credit me for my time or literally send someone to my house to pick it up and not have me fill out paperwork, then I would happily return it. Otherwise they are SoL. I am not their bitch, I am not their mommy to fix their mistakes. I will not expend effort to fix their mistakes. I will not notify them, fill out RMA forms, go to a FexEx or UPS store to send it, etc.

That is not an ethical issue, it is an economic one.

Examples:

If I see someone drop $20 on the street, I will pick it up and give it back to them.If I am at my favorite bar or restaraunt and I find $20 on the ground I will give it to management (the owner might ask the management and if he/she does the place I like will stay open longer, thus value for me).If I am walking down the street and there is $20 lying on the ground and noone is in the area, I am NOT going to go to a police station, report it lost, fill out the forms, and come back weeks later. If it was $20,000 I might but not for $20.

NOTE: I did once return a drivers license I found near my house, went out of my way for 30 minutes. I think the reason was simple empathy. It was super easy, I had an address, and I empathized with someone losing their license.

And why does contradicting human psychology cause problem in a physics theory?

I am in no way up on deep QM theory, but it seems to me that a lot of QM goes against our built in psychology. And that is ok. Humans are built to survive WAY above the quantum level. Early homonids didn't need to understand quantum theory to hit an animal with a stick. (or not). Their development was not based on something that by definition they could not observe or recognize.

As I said, I am not no expert, but if one theory breaks a bunch of laws of physics, and another doesn't, the first theory seems to hold more weight. Even if that theory removes choice from the equation of existence.

This also applies to evolution. If consciousness can't perceive the quantum split, then it can effectively exist blissfully ignorant of it.

On a side note, the removal of choice as a variable is NOT the same as removing choice. In a way that is a beautiful theory because while we cannot perceive all of the potential options, they are all real, and all valid. There is a serenity in that knowledge.

My personal belief is that probably all of these theories are fundamentally wrong and in 500 years they will look back in QM like we look at 'equants' today.

Apparently when a Dev says something will happen (no #pV) and 9 months later they Devs change their minds, it is now considered 'oath breaking'

This is the same logic that people use to say that when a politician says he is for something, then is presented evidence of that position being wrong and changes it, that said politician is wishy washy.

The GP is making a serious effect to misinform Slashdot. Literally NOTHING he posted is true. There is a subset of the userbase that I believe is intentionally trying to tank the game through misinformation after they realized that PGI is not going to make the game exactly the way thy want (#SAVEMWO). They are children who refuse to acknowledge that compromise in game making happens.

As StJobe said, there have been decisions made by PGI I dont agree with, but all the crap posted in the GP is just dead wrong.

MWO is a good game with the potential to be a great game. Will it get there....I don't know. I hope so, but there are serious hurdles. IF the Community Warfare plays out well and fairly quickly after launch, I think ti will have along life.....if it flops or suffers further delays...not so much.